DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “fine” in claims 1-6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP’616 (JP 2013-095616).
Regarding claims 1-3, JP’616 teaches a method comprising: preparing powder catalyst (such as iron powder) and adding the powder catalyst in a supply tank; supplying a hydrocarbon gas (such as methane gas) and contacting between the hydrocarbon gas and the metal particles being carried out at a temperature of 800°C to 900°C (Page 6 and 7). JP’616 discloses that the hydrocarbon is decomposed into ultrafine carbon (Page 7). JP’616 does not explicitly disclose that the powder catalyst iron powder is changed to fine iron powder as recited in claim 1. However, in view of the fact that JP’616 teaches that the raw materials are methane and iron powder that are the same as the raw material as recited in claims 1 and 3, and the reaction is conducted at 800°C to 900°C, which meets the reaction temperature recited in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the iron powder will become fine iron powder in the process of JP’616 as recited in claim 1. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
JP’616 discloses that the ultrafine carbon grown on the powder catalyst is discharged and powder catalyst is removed and separated from the recovered ultrafine fine carbon (Page 7), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwin (US 2007/0215520, IDS dated 02/18/2025).
Regarding claims 1-3, Edwin teaches a method, comprising: preparing metal catalyst particles such as nickel powder ([0019] to [0023]); supplying a hydrocarbon gas such as methane to the metal catalyst particles, and contacting between the hydrocarbon gas and the metal catalyst particles being carried out at a temperature of 630°C to 680°C ([0019] to [0036]), which meets the limitations recited in claim 1.
Edwin does not explicitly disclose that the powder catalyst particles are changed to fine powder as recited in claim 1. However, in view of the fact that Edwin teaches that the raw materials are methane and nickel powder that are the same as the raw material as recited in claims 1 and 3, and the reaction is conducted at 630°C to 680°C, which meets the reaction temperature recited in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that that the nickel powder will become fine powder in the process of Edwin as recited in claim 1. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Edwin discloses that catalyst and produced carbon are separated from each other ([0050]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Edwin discloses that the catalyst preferable has a particle size of 20-40 µm ([0022]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Edwin discloses supplying hydrogen to the catalyst particles before the step of supplying the feed gas to the catalyst particles ([0049]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwin (US 2007/0215520).
Regarding claim 5, Edwin discloses that the feed gas comprises methane and Co at a ratio of 10:90 to 90:10 ([0030]), which converts a partial pressure of methane of 0.0101 to 0.0909 MPa. Thus, the partial pressure of hydrocarbon disclosed by Edwin overlaps the recited partial pressure in claim 5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 5 is obvious over Edwin.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 and 6-13 of U.S. Patent No. 18/037,416 (US 2023/0406701). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-4 and 6-13 of U.S. Patent No. 18/037,416 teach all the limitations recited in instant claims 1-6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights